Salary Cap Idea

[USAEagle]

I was on 6PR tonight and I fronted Brad and Peter about a solution to the salary cap problem.

Instead of having a team salary cap, have a per player salary cap.

I suggested that the maximum amount any player could earn would be $120,000 per year. That would put the maximum player payments based on a 40 man roster at 4.8 million dollars, a savings of 1.2 million right off the top. That would put Fremantle in the black, almost.

Naturally, no team would ever reach that maximum, as there are always rookies and journeyman players who would not command that kind of money.

The scale could look something like this:

With the list broken up into Five sections,
of eight players each, you could have 5 pay grades.

Level 1: Rookies to 2 years - $40,000
Level 2: 2-4 - 60,000
Level 3: 5-6 - 80,000
Level 4: 7-8 - 100,000
Level 5: 9 plus 120,000

If a player walked out of a club for no reason other than wanting to go home, (like Headland) he would have to go back one-half level, thus causing him to desire to stay on at his club, so it would create more loyalty.

If a player was traded, he would get promoted half a grade, therefore compensating him for getting the shaft from the club he was loyal to.

This would seriously ease the pressure on clubs like Freo, North and the Bulldogs, and would not cause any financial hardship to any player, as anybody can live on the salaries mentioned....maybe not as extravagantly, but lets face it, these guys play for a living.

In adopting this, however, the AFL should not make player endorsements part of their salary, so if Chris Judd for instance gets a contract with Just Spectacles, this income would be separate, and not part of their AFL salary.

What I said on the radio was not as detailed as this, but I won the TalkBack caller award anyway.

:D

[i_luv_westcoast]

What was the prize?

[USAEagle]

Dinner for two at MaMa Maria's and a double pass to the Glory.

[i_luv_westcoast]

Not bad at all :)

[larrikin]

Only problem I see with this is that players are already on at least 5 times you maximum figure of $120,000 per season. Why would the AFLPA even think about accepting this?

[USAEagle]

I have thought of that and I don't know....

I suspect there would have to be a scaling down period. I would like to think, that, unless the players are totally in it for the money and not for the love of the game, that they would come to the party somehow, seeing as how a plan like this would certainly save some clubs from, at best, amalgamation, and at worst, extinction.

I suppose there would have to be some form of Grandfather Clause, allowing players currently on the higher salaries to either keep them, or scale them down over a five year term, or something.

What we do not want is an out of control system like the USA, where players are on as much as 10,000,000 per season, and more.

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by USAEagle
I was on 6PR tonight and I fronted Brad and Peter about a solution to the salary cap problem.

Instead of having a team salary cap, have a per player salary cap.

I suggested that the maximum amount any player could earn would be $120,000 per year. That would put the maximum player payments based on a 40 man roster at 4.8 million dollars, a savings of 1.2 million right off the top. That would put Fremantle in the black, almost.

Naturally, no team would ever reach that maximum, as there are always rookies and journeyman players who would not command that kind of money.

The scale could look something like this:

With the list broken up into Five sections,
of eight players each, you could have 5 pay grades.

Level 1: Rookies to 2 years - $40,000
Level 2: 2-4 - 60,000
Level 3: 5-6 - 80,000
Level 4: 7-8 - 100,000
Level 5: 9 plus 120,000

If a player walked out of a club for no reason other than wanting to go home, (like Headland) he would have to go back one-half level, thus causing him to desire to stay on at his club, so it would create more loyalty.

If a player was traded, he would get promoted half a grade, therefore compensating him for getting the shaft from the club he was loyal to.

This would seriously ease the pressure on clubs like Freo, North and the Bulldogs, and would not cause any financial hardship to any player, as anybody can live on the salaries mentioned....maybe not as extravagantly, but lets face it, these guys play for a living.

In adopting this, however, the AFL should not make player endorsements part of their salary, so if Chris Judd for instance gets a contract with Just Spectacles, this income would be separate, and not part of their AFL salary.

What I said on the radio was not as detailed as this, but I won the TalkBack caller award anyway.

:D Absolute non-starter. If 120k was the ceiling for the sport, kids would be leaving in droves to play other sports. The salary cap restricts true market forces as it is (which is a good thing), but that would be ridiculous. No sports administrator in their right mind would even consider that.

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by USAEagle

What we do not want is an out of control system like the USA, where players are on as much as 10,000,000 per season, and more. Are you one of these people who think no one is worth over a certain amount, whether it be a CEO, entertainer or sportsperson?

[Thrawn666]

As long as the cap doesnt get out of control I'm quite happy with it at the moment. As long as the playters realise that being a national sport there is only so much money in the game, perhaps the trading of big name players to ease cap pressure in the last week will make them realise this.

I think that the fact that clubs like Melbourne and North having to gt rid of players due to cap problems can only benefit our club. We are one of the best clubs at making a profit, even in the years when the team was absolutely ****, which means we will always have the money available to get the best players. If only there were free agency :)

[Kenny_01]

Yeah I think it is fine the way it is now, but good idea nonetheless, USAEagle :)

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by USAEagle
Dinner for two at MaMa Maria's and a double pass to the Glory.

Second prize - Dinner with Brad Hardie at MaMa Maria's and two double passes to the Glory.

Hilarious idea - would really cheer up the top players having to take a 400%+ pay cut.

I reckon the salary cap started to work properly in the last two years:
- Carlton got caught (again), so policing is there
- Richmond had a crap season after Gaspar held the club and his teammates to ransom by threatening a return to the glorious West
- Melbourne had to trade Woewodin to keep the other "stars" on their list
- Voss and others offered to take a pay cut to keep the Premiership team together.

The message is: there's only so much to go round, it's a team game, so don't be a prick about the money.

[Goldenblue]

Originally posted by Voice of Reason


Second prize - Dinner with Brad Hardie at MaMa Maria's and two double passes to the Glory.

Hilarious idea - would really cheer up the top players having to take a 400%+ pay cut.

I reckon the salary cap started to work properly in the last two years:
- Carlton got caught (again), so policing is there
- Richmond had a crap season after Gaspar held the club and his teammates to ransom by threatening a return to the glorious West
- Melbourne had to trade Woewodin to keep the other "stars" on their list
- Voss and others offered to take a pay cut to keep the Premiership team together.

The message is: there's only so much to go round, it's a team game, so don't be a prick about the money.


Well thought out VOR. Well on the money here, so to speak.
I think there should be caps on all clubs and players like Gaspar, well if he was asking way too much and it happened to unsettle the side, I'd be happy to trade him. I am sure there are other players who can fill his spot.

I just hope the cap stays and there is no restraint of trade issue that will ever go to court and upset the salary cap. It would mean clubs buying premierships again like they did in the 70's and 80's.

[blockerhall]

I think a little thing called restraint of trade might be a problem, paticularly relative to revenues generated.

The AFLPA would absolutely blow that suggestion out of the water. Contracts are finding their levels, IMO.

[daddy_4_eyes]

I don't mind the salary cap, leave it as it is. What I don't like is the restrictions on player movements between clubs. They should just allow free agency so players such as Headland are not blackmailed. Brisbane would either trade him for a fair price, or lose him for nothing.

It wouldn't allow teams to buy premierships as the salary cap would still prevent one team from having too many stars, but it would allow players to move clubs if their current club is uncooperative.

[GoEagles]

Congrats on the prize win USAEagle! I think I might have heard you on radio, I turned it on towards the end and the main topic was Salary Cap. Brad was yapping on about how clubs should rank players before and at the end of the season to judge how players should be paid, and reward those who have improve their ranking.

Are you going to invite Brad or George to dinner? Mama Maria's sounds like Peter Vlahos's mother cooking.

[thegur]

at the risk of getting picky .... USA Eagle said .....

"What we do not want is an out of control system like the USA, where players are on as much as 10,000,000 per season, and more."

Well, what's wrong with that? Absolutley nothing.

I'll give you three reasons.

1. In the US, big 4 franchises don't make losses like they do in Australia. The Florida Marlins attract less than 10000 people a game and make a profit.

2. The day after Ken Griffey Jnr. signed a US$110m multi year ontract with the Cincinatti Reds, the Reds made over half that back in season ticket sales, for the next season alone. Not bad huh?

3. If Ken Griffey did not earn that much, who'd keep the dollars?

it's all about administrators doing their job properly, there is nothing wrong with high wages, IF THE SITUATION allows. Obviously however, at certain AFL clubs, this isn't the case, but at others, it is.

as they say in the classics ....


don't hate the player, hate the game.

rant over

thegur

[USAEagle]

Originally posted by Bunsen Burner....

Are you one of these people who think no one is worth over a certain amount, whether it be a
CEO, entertainer or sportsperson?

______________________

Absolutely not....My Father in Law is recognised as one of the top Cardio Thoracic Surgeons in Perth. He is pioneering the use of Kangaroo Heart Valves in people which do not deteriorate to replace the Pig heart valves that are currently in use, which do break down. He spent 6 years at Uni, 5 years in residency, another 5 years in specialist training,and who knows how many years as a wage doctor at a teaching hospital. He headed the department at Royal Perth for 10 years, started the Cardio unit at Fremantle in 1998, and is now about to retire. Shane Woewodin can kick a football pretty well and run fast. Dad has never come close to 500 large in a year. If Woewodin deserves 500 grand, then my father in law deserves at least a million.

While I am on the subject, why do people get so upset at Doctor's wages? It costs you 30- 35 dolalrs to go see a GP, and you get 24 of that back. A plumber, who did a two year TAFE course, and maybe a bit of an apprenticeship, gets $70 just for coming to your house.

A GP gets 30 - 35 dollars for a consult.

Of that money, half goes to taxes (dad is on 51%), another half goes to malpractice insurance,(down to $8.75)and about a third of that goes to paying salaries and rent on consulting rooms and Theatre fees.

The breakdown is about the same for all specialists, so if the Cardio Thoracic schedule fee is 90 dollars, his payments are the percentages.

No I am not against people making money.

What I absolutely hate though, is a Doc busts his A$$ for 20 years to get to a comfortable standard of living, and people call them Greedy, and some joker hits the lotto and every one says, good on ya, like he earned it or something. (I would keep it if I won it too, so I don't even begrudge them their winnings)

I think that if players would take less money - ideally, the savings would trickle down to people like you and me, with the result that a price for a ticket to the away derby would cost us close to what we pay per game on our membership, rather than double for the same level seat.

I work about 50 hours per week, and I made 46 K last year. If I did not work 10 out of 12 Saturdays, I would not make ends meet. Footballers train three days and play a game one day a week, and make how much money in a year? At age 18 - 30, some living at home still?

I have two Autistic Children that need special schooling that is in West Perth, so my wife drives there two days a week from Armadale. Because of the children's needs, she can't go out to work, so we get some money from Centrelink.

Out of the 46K last year, 12k went to taxes, and we got about 8k from Centrelink. If I take holidays, I can't work overtime, so I fall behind.

Then we hear about banks making multi BILLION dollar profits.

I don't have a problem with people earning their money. My problem is people earning multi millions doing things that have little or no benefit to the community.

Ben Cousins - Great player, but he can't do a Bypass...why does he deserve more than my Father in law?

What it boils down to is this...we have our priorities backwards.

The people who should be earning large amounts can't because of government restrictions (restraint of trade - Docs can't advertise, and their wives cannot be partners in their businesses), but a a brickie can call his wife a business partner and divide his salary in half so she gets half and he gets half, and they pay less tax...

And the people who are basically entertainers, and some of them just downright nasty people - Colin Friels, for instance, who was ordered tonight not to Assault or threaten his wife for 6 months(go figure that one out) - and certainly not nearly as educated as a GP, let alone a heart surgeon, make millions.

If that is not skewif, what is?

Don't get me started ....

[ozzult]

What it boils down to is Economics.

You can only be paid as much as your industry can support.

If the industry you are in cannot support what you're being paid, you will not get paid that much or you will lose your job. (as we are seeing with North and Bulldogs, (having to take paycuts)).

If you're not happy with the money you get, change industries, do something, it's too easy to just sit back and say, "Well.. this is the life for me, I'll just have to take it and live with it".

If the industry you work in can afford to pay you $500,000 a year so be it.

[Voice of Reason]

USA Eagle

Mate, in an ideal world, I agree with lots of what you say and the spirit of it all.

But as I say to my daughter (happy birthday to Aim Straight, 15 today) - life is not fair.

[ozzult]

Your daughters name is "Aim Straight" ?

[eagleskickass]

Its very difficult to balance it. On one hand we have teams struggling to survive and so need reduction in costs to make them viable, on the other we have an increasing demand, where we cannot really cap maximum salaries, but can't allow them to sky rocket like othet leagues.

Still don't see the current 16 teams surviving as are and with even further increases in salary who knows what the numbers on teams will be like, might make it to 28 for money reasons, would hate to get a bad injury year!

[ozzult]

A playing list of 28 is simply not viable.

A lot of teams this year would have been running out with 1 or 2 players on the bench if that was the case.

If you're gonna boost your post count, at least do it with something useful ;)

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by ozzult
What it boils down to is Economics.

You can only be paid as much as your industry can support.

If the industry you are in cannot support what you're being paid, you will not get paid that much or you will lose your job. (as we are seeing with North and Bulldogs, (having to take paycuts)).

If you're not happy with the money you get, change industries, do something, it's too easy to just sit back and say, "Well.. this is the life for me, I'll just have to take it and live with it".

If the industry you work in can afford to pay you $500,000 a year so be it. Bingo!

I don't begrudge what doctors earn (or anyone else for that matter), but you will find most people are paid their market value. Ben Cousins makes his money because he gets people through the gates, gets people turning on the TV, gets kids wearing Puma footy boots etc. He creates wealth and deserves his share.

And I don't think people have their priorities wrong. Sport/Entertainment/Leisure is just as important as hard work. Everyone loves to relax and enjoy the few indulgences they have in life. You can't force people to not watch sport just because it is unfair that it will create wealth to the sportsperson that exceeds the wealth of someone who can perform a quadruple heart bypass/flyover.

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by eagleskickass
Its very difficult to balance it. On one hand we have teams struggling to survive and so need reduction in costs to make them viable, on the other we have an increasing demand, where we cannot really cap maximum salaries, but can't allow them to sky rocket like othet leagues.

Still don't see the current 16 teams surviving as are and with even further increases in salary who knows what the numbers on teams will be like, might make it to 28 for money reasons, would hate to get a bad injury year! It does seem apparent that players are overpaid ATM. I think at least 10 clubs made a loss this year which indicates the game can't afford wages that high. We can only hope the AFL doesn't increase the salary cap much this year, if at all.

[daddy_4_eyes]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Bingo!

I don't begrudge what doctors earn (or anyone else for that matter), but you will find most people are paid their market value. Ben Cousins makes his money because he gets people through the gates, gets people turning on the TV, gets kids wearing Puma footy boots etc. He creates wealth and deserves his share.

And I don't think people have their priorities wrong. Sport/Entertainment/Leisure is just as important as hard work. Everyone loves to relax and enjoy the few indulgences they have in life. You can't force people to not watch sport just because it is unfair that it will create wealth to the sportsperson that exceeds the wealth of someone who can perform a quadruple heart bypass/flyover.

Unfortunately the AFL does not operate like that. If a team finishes 16th, their players market value is not the same as the premiership teams. Yet the same salary cap applies.

What we must understand is that the AFL operates like a communist economy, that is, market value only applies once the restrictions of the AFL have been covered.

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes


Unfortunately the AFL does not operate like that. If a team finishes 16th, their players market value is not the same as the premiership teams. Yet the same salary cap applies.

What we must understand is that the AFL operates like a communist economy, that is, market value only applies once the restrictions of the AFL have been covered.
Okay, I missed that point because I was comparing an sportsman to a doctor. A lot of AFL players earn under their market value and a lot earn over because of the restrictions (salary cap). I should have used Lleyton Hewitt as an example, because he earns his true market value as he has no restrictions.

[Voice of Reason]

Originally posted by ozzult
Your daughters name is "Aim Straight" ?

Her name on Bigfooty is Aim Straight.

She adopted it because she was the author of the famous pictures of footy posts and goal umpires indicating a goal that were pinned on the urinals in the Eagles rooms before the Final versus Western Bulldogs in 1999 (subsequently pictured in the Herald Sun and on The Back Page on TV).

[larrikin]

Originally posted by daddy_4_eyes


Unfortunately the AFL does not operate like that. If a team finishes 16th, their players market value is not the same as the premiership teams. Yet the same salary cap applies.

What we must understand is that the AFL operates like a communist economy, that is, market value only applies once the restrictions of the AFL have been covered.
This is the whole problem with the cap. The 95% rule (or 92.5% now) is rediculous, especially when you look at the clubs which have been punnished for salary cap breeches in recent years (case in point Freo last year, Carlton this year)

We've all had a stab at Freo for paying Metropolis $280k, but this is why it has been done. By forcing clubs to pay a percentage of the cap IT REWARDS MEDIOCRITY. It then leaves struggling clubs with overpaid, underperforming players who noone else will touch so that the clubs can pick up better players.

The whole system lacks logic.